Our Contrived Fiscal Crisis and the President who buys into it …
Posted: April 13, 2011 | Author: dakinikat | Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, Barack Obama, Breaking News, Catfood Commission, Economy, Federal Budget and Budget deficit | Tags: budget cuts, Budget Deficit, Federal Budget | 44 CommentsFederal deficits always go up big and automatically during two events. That would be wars and recessions. We have
had two wars going on for about 10 years now and we’ve had the deepest recession since World War 2. Getting rid of the two wars and solving the residual problems of unemployment would eliminate any potential future fiscal crisis. Any economist will tell you this. It’s not a secret we keep from the world. Passing huge tax cuts and laws that remove nearly all capital and all types of businesses incomes from the pool of revenue sources only exacerbates the revenues problems you get during recessions and expenditure run-ups that come from running wars.
We’ve had excessive war spending before. Our country was born with a lot of money borrowed from the Dutch. The Civil War and both World Wars–especially number two–placed our federal deficit and debt at astronomical levels of GDP. Did our country crash and burn because of the actions of John Adams, Abraham Lincoln or the spending during World War 1 or World War 2? Did you feel that life in the 1950s and 1960s and the children born then were oppressed by excessive debt?
Of course not.
Federal Debts and Deficits are functions of the size and health of the economy underlying the obligations. We have plenty of taxable assets and businesses making money. You can tell how risky the market for our Federal debt is by looking at the yields on Government bonds and Treasuries. The current yields for Treasuries are listed right here. They are at near historic lows and they are still selling. Nothing in that market indicates any reticence by any participant to buy American Debt obligations. The ability to tax and raise taxes as well as print money is a unique function of government. We can do both. If we’d have let the Dubya Bush tax cuts just expire we would’ve closed the deficit gap and reduced the debt by more than anything than is on the table right now. That would include the disingenuous and malfeasant Ryan plan. It also includes the the one that will come from the White House today at 1:35 est.
We need to put taxing capital back on the table. That includes dividends, capital gains, and vast inheritances and trust funds. We need to remove tax loopholes and subsidies to corporations. We do not need to remove the last vestiges of safety nets standing. There appears to be no one brave enough in Washington DC to say that but I will join the bow tie set in shouting just that. It is time to stop subsidizing incompetent business owners and time to invest in the country and its people. Washington DC has the nation’s priorities all wrong.
The White House provided no more specifics on the four steps to be offered in his afternoon speech at George Washington University. But an official said his plan would “borrow” from the recommendations of the 2010 fiscal commission that Obama empaneled, but whose proposals he never fully embraced.
“The president will make clear that while we all share the goal of reducing our deficit and putting our nation back on a fiscally responsible path, his vision is one where we can live within our means without putting burdens on the middle class and seniors or impeding our ability to invest in our future,” the official said.
Republicans–as eloquently stated by former budget Director David Stockman–have a tax fetish. Republicans are refusing to put any taxes on the table. Rand Paul is considering filibustering the increase in the debt ceiling. It appears some of these folks are so disturbingly ideological and economics-disabled that they will let the US go “bankrupt” in the only way possible it could do so. They will allow the US to default on its debt obligations. The Republican Party seems ruled by insane people at the moment. The Democrats, however, are ruled by folks that appear to be playing into right wing memes to appeal to some independents. So, why are we only left with poisonous choices?
Some of the Democratic base is finally waking up to the truth about Obama. He has no core Democratic values. We’re about to see a Democratic president put the cornerstones of Democratic policy on the bargaining table in an effort to appease some folks during the re-election cycle. I’m wondering if it’s all not just a little too late. Ever since the real economists left the building, White House Policy has grown more and more Republican.
Key liberal groups, which helped elect Obama in 2008, are raising concerns that he has given up political ground to Republicans, allowing the message of reducing government to trump that of creating jobs and lowering the unemployment rate.
Seizing on Friday’s deal, which would cut $38.5 billion from the fiscal 2011 budget, activists on Tuesday threatened to sit out the 2012 presidential campaign if Obama goes too far with further cuts.
“The fundamental problem in our country right now is unemployment and a jobs crisis, not a deficit crisis,” said Deepak Bhargava, executive director of the Center for Community Change, an advocacy group for the poor. “It appears the president is fighting on the wrong terrain and is conceding that the only thing we should be talking about is how to bring down the deficit.”
The clash over government spending — coming as Obama prepares to make a major speech on fiscal discipline Wednesday — is the latest example of the frayed relations between the president and a broad coalition of union and activist groups.
The details of the budget compromise as well as the way that the Health Care Reform act was rammed through congress have shown that Obama is more than eager to get something, anything passed than to fight for reform that would actually reflect either public opinion or traditional Democratic Values. Poor black women from the District of Colombia were nearly the first ones thrown under the budget cutting bus. Which previous US Democratic President would have sold them out?
To get the trade-off on the policy riders, Democrats had to give on spending — to the tune of the largest budget cuts ever. There’s a $1.1-billion cut across the board for discretionary spending and dozens of nips and tucks all over government, from Justice Department programs to subsidies for co-ops in the new health care law to the Pell Grant program for low-income college students.
I am going to watch this speech. I’m only hoping some of the disgruntled chat coming from real Democrats materializes into something substantive after it happens.
DeFazio said Monday that Democrats haven’t put enough pressure on Obama.
“That’s what the House did wrong in the last Congress, and in part why we lost is we never pushed back, no matter how wrong he was or how off-base he was; we never pushed back,” DeFazio told MSNBC.
“There are a number of us in the caucus now pushing back very hard on our leadership,” DeFazio said. “Who knows where they’ll end up, but maybe we can take enough D’s with us to make them uncomfortable and to make them stick with making the president act like a Democrat.”
The Democrats’ frustration with Obama is hardly new. Liberals were furious in December when the president caved to GOP demands that Congress extend tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. More recently, many liberals have questioned the wisdom and constitutionality of launching military attacks on Libya with prior approval from Congress.
Behind closed doors, Democratic leaders are frustrated that Obama hasn’t been more involved in the big policy fights of recent months, including the spending battle.
The way to get to this President is through his re-election efforts and his ego. Hopefully, a few groups will stop facilitating the cave-ins and start fighting for the country’s interests. You can watch the President’s speech on CSPAN at this link. I have my bucket o’ Nerf balls ready and I’m warming up for the first pitch of the 2012 presidential campaign season. Join me as we share the pain and none of the gain.
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
- More
Will Anyone Drink the Koolaid this Time?
Posted: April 4, 2011 | Author: bostonboomer | Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, abortion rights, Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Democratic Politics, Economy, Elections, Foreign Affairs, Gitmo, Hillary Clinton, Iraq, public education, racism, Reproductive Rights, torture, U.S. Economy, U.S. Politics, unemployment, WE TOLD THEM SO, Women's Rights, worker rights | Tags: Ari Berman, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Jim Messina, Joan Walsh, John Phillips, Kristen Breitweiser, Max Baucus, Michelle Manning, minorities, Richard Roeper, white people, Women, young people | 23 CommentsAhh…those days of Koolaid and hope…were they really only 2-1/2 years ago?
Here is the video Michelle Manning made for Barack Obama back in February, 2008.
She was so inspired by Barack Obama that she went all out, according to Andy Ostroy at Huffpo.
Back in 2008, a very pregnant Michelle, who’s little brother was fighting in Iraq, protested the war and rallied hard for Obama. She took part in out-of-state get-out-the-vote campaigns. She produced the above video at her own $8,000 expense. And she sent the maximum contribution allowed by law. She was one of those people who were ridiculed as Obamacons. She took the Kool-Aid pitcher right up to her face and guzzled until she was drunk on “Change We Can Believe In.” No doubt about it, Michelle was hard-core.
And then something happened after the election. There was change, alright, but not the kind that Michelle, and millions like her, expected. The president they loved and fought for was letting them down. He hadn’t ended the war, as promised. He escalated the war in Afghanistan. Dropped health care reform’s public option. Didn’t support gay marriage. Took forever to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Folded like a $2 lawn chair on repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. They grew angrier as he seemed to care more about placating Republicans than the die-hard progressives who put him in office. And now they’re upset that he’s gotten the United States embroiled in a third war, in Libya.
Here is what Michelle Manning has to say in 2011 about supporting Obama for a second term as President:
I can’t anymore. I worked too hard for him. I gave too much. I stood out in the freezing rain on Super Tuesday in Union Square holding a sign seven months pregnant begging for votes all day. I knocked on doors in Pennsylvania for two days begging for votes while I was nursing my new newborn baby, taking breaks to pump milk with a portable breast pump and a cooler in my car every three hours. I was a maxed out donor. I made two videos I put up on YouTube at my own production expense. He owes me. He needs to at least keep his promises, and he hasn’t. I haven’t wanted to say anything so as not to betray my party, but I am an American first, and a Democrat second, and keeping my mouth shut is wrong. We need another option in 2012. I’m afraid Mr. Obama is a one term president, and the sooner we recognize that and start working on Plan B, the better off we will be when the time comes. Pretending he’s doing a good job isn’t helping anyone, and I’m afraid the “give him time” grace period is over. It’s reelection time already. I want another option.
Ostroy asks if Hillary might decide to run again, and claims Michelle and others like her would support Clinton this time. I’m afraid it’s too late for that, but I think Obama is going to have to deal with people in the media bringing up the possibility again and again for the next few months.
Follow me below the fold. Read the rest of this entry »
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
- More
Late Night Libya Update: Defections and “Secret Talks”
Posted: April 1, 2011 | Author: bostonboomer | Filed under: Barack Obama, Central Intelligence Agency, Foreign Affairs, Libya, MENA, open thread, U.S. Military, U.S. Politics | Tags: cease fire, exit strategy, intelligence operatives, Libyan defectors, negotiations, presidential finding, Saif Gaddafi, special forces | 19 CommentsThis is just a quick update on the events of the last couple of days related to Libya. You can use this as an open thread. The big headline is that Gaddafi’s sons may want to find a way out of the mess they’re in. Last night the Guardian reported that
Colonel Gaddafi’s regime has sent one of its most trusted envoys to London for confidential talks with British officials, the Guardian can reveal.
Mohammed Ismail, a senior aide to Gaddafi’s son Saif al-Islam, visited London in recent days, British government sources familiar with the meeting have confirmed. The contacts with Ismail are believed to have been one of a number between Libyan officials and the west in the last fortnight, amid signs that the regime may be looking for an exit strategy.
Disclosure of Ismail’s visit comes in the immediate aftermath of the defection to Britain of Moussa Koussa, Libya’s foreign minister and its former external intelligence head, who has been Britain’s main conduit to the Gaddafi regime since the early 1990s.
In the Guardian’s follow-up article, Peter Beaumont writes that Gaddafi’s sons seem to be running things in Libya, and they want to make a deal with the opposition fighters.
…increasingly, according to those familiar with how Saif and his brother Saadi are thinking, Gaddafi’s sons have become aware that they have a problem that they need to find a way out of – despite Saif’s bellicose language.
Ismail’s visit, described in Tripoli as a trip to see his children who are being educated in Britain, is all the more significant given the defection of Libya’s foreign minister and former external intelligence chief, Moussa Koussa.
He was here, say Foreign Office sources, on regime business. And that is significant at a time when diplomats and others have been in the capital to discuss how Libya might be after Gaddafi.
While it is difficult to assess in a regime as opaque as Libya, the evidence is that something is afoot. What it suggests is that under intense international pressure, key figures around Gaddafi – including, it would seem, some of his sons – are reaching out to channels of communication with the west.
According to Beaumont, there have been a number of contacts between Libya and the Brits, the French, and the U.S. in the past couple of weeks. Nevertheless, Gaddafi turned down the opposition’s offer of a cease fire today.
The tempo of diplomatic and military action paving the way to a possible ceasefire in Libya’s bloody civil war was gathering pace yesterday with reports that a son of Muammar Gaddafi was attempting to broker a deal.
Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, who has appeared as a public and belligerent face of the regime during the weeks of violent strife, is said to be proposing an agreement which would limit the role of his father and include opposition figures in an interim government. Elections would be held in the near future and a “reconciliation process” put in place.
The details of the plan cannot be independently verified. However, according to diplomatic sources, senior officials in the West view Saif al-Islam, who supposedly wants to remain to play a “constructive role” in a post-war Libya, as a credible figure.
I don’t think the opposition is interested in having anyone from the Gaddafi family involved in the running any future Libyan government though.
Some other important members of Gaddafi’s regime have already defected, and the Guardian provides a list of those, along with big names who are sticking by the Libyan dictator.
The latest defector was Ali Adussalm Treki, had been appointed to represent Libya at the UN. Yesterday Treki, who was in Cairo, announced that he would not accept the post and did not intend to return to Libya. The Arabist Blog excerpted an article from the London Times (behind a paywall) that says more defections are coming.
…there were reports that other top Libyan officials had also defected, including the Prime Minister, the Speaker of Parliament, the head of external intelligence and the Oil Minister. An influential deputy foreign minister was also said to have quit.
If those reports are confirmed, it would suggest that Colonel Gaddafi’s regime is is indeed “crumbling and rotten” – as David Cameron said today – and about to collapse around its leader.
Another name added to the list of defectors was Ali Adussalm Treki, a former foreign minister whom Colonel Gaddaffi had appointed as ambassador to the UN. He refused to take up the post, condemning the “spilling of blood”.
Since Gaddafi was running low on candidates for the UN ambassador, he asked someone from Nicaragua to do the job. From Bloomberg:
Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann, a former foreign minister of Nicaragua’s socialist Sandinista government and one-time president of the United Nations General Assembly, has been named by Muammar Qaddafi’s regime as Libya’s ambassador to the UN.
D’Escoto Brockmann, a Catholic priest who was General Assembly president in 2008 and 2009, once said former U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were “possessed by the demons of manifest destiny.” D’Escoto was Nicaragua’s foreign minister for the Sandinista government as it fought U.S.-backed contra rebels during the nation’s 1980s civil war.
He called Reagan a “butcher of my people” for supporting a rebellion that caused Nicaraguans to suffer “something much bigger than the Twin Towers,” a reference to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York.
Nicaragua’s government said in a statement that D’Escoto Brockmann received instructions from Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega to “accept this nomination and represent the people and government of Libya to re-establish peace and defend their legitimate right to resolve their national conflicts without foreign intervention.”
Meanwhile, Libya is apparently crawling with CIA, MI6, and goddess knows what other secret operatives. Mark Hosenball, who first broke the story of Obama’s “secret finding,” now says intelligence operatives were there before Obama signed the authorization. I guess those guys don’t count as boots on the ground? Well, they still make me nervous.
U.S. intelligence operatives were on the ground in Libya before President Barack Obama signed a secret order authorizing covert support for anti-Gaddafi rebels, U.S. government sources told Reuters.
The CIA personnel were sent in to contact opponents of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and assess their capabilities, two U.S. officials said.
“They’re trying to sort out who could be turned into a military unit and who couldn’t,” said Bob Baer, a former CIA case officer whose memoirs were turned into the Hollywood thriller “Syriana.”
Baer said the U.S. operatives most likely entered Libya on the ground through neighboring Egypt and are lightly equipped.
The president — who said in a speech on Monday “that we would not put ground troops into Libya” — has legal authority to send U.S. intelligence personnel without having to sign a covert action order, current and former U.S. officials said.
Within the last two or three weeks, Obama did sign a secret “finding” authorizing the CIA to pursue a broad range of covert activities in support of the rebels.
Hosenball also says Obama is considering sending in special forces to help train the Libyan opposition fighters. I don’t like the sound of that either.
I’ve been supportive of the no-fly zone, just to prevent a massacre, but I don’t want to see this go much further.
UPDATE: The former Sandanista who had agreed to act as Libya’s UN representative has changed his mind.
The apparent about-face by Mr. D’Escoto, whose country has forged an unlikely friendship with Libya, marked a modest setback for the government of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. It has endured several high-profile defections from among its diplomatic ranks this week, including the decision of its former foreign minister, Moussa Koussa, to defect in London.
Libya’s ambassador to the United Nations, Abdurrahman Mohamed Shalgam, defected in late February after denouncing Colonel Qaddafi during a Security Council meeting in which he pleaded for international help to save Libya from bloodshed. Then, the Libyan government’s choice to replace him, Ali Treki, a close associate of Mr. Qaddafi and a former United Nations General Assembly President, left the government and the country. But Mr. Treki said in an interview in Cairo on Friday that he would not call himself a defector.
A Nicaraguan diplomat, who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly, said that the initiative to appoint Mr. D’Escoto as Libya’s envoy had come from Libya, and not Nicaragua. He declined to comment on the reasons underlying Mr. D’Escoto’s decision to represent Nicaragua instead, but he said that Mr. D’Escoto would use his new position to press for a cease fire in Libya.
Hmmm….sounds like someone pressured someone. Maybe Russia?
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
- More
Thursday Reads
Posted: March 31, 2011 | Author: bostonboomer | Filed under: Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Central Intelligence Agency, Democratic Politics, Diplomacy Nightmares, executive orders, Foreign Affairs, Iraq, Libya, MENA, morning reads, U.S. Military, U.S. Politics | Tags: CIA, death anxiety, evolution, General Electric, intelligent design, Jeffrey Immelt, Libya uprising, Moammar Gaddafi, progs, Quinnipiac poll, Russ Feingold, the Super-Rich | 40 CommentsGood Morning!! Here are the stories that caught my eye this morning.
Reuters: Exclusive: Obama authorizes secret help for Libya rebels
President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday.
Obama signed the order, known as a presidential “finding”, within the last two or three weeks, according to government sources familiar with the matter.
Such findings are a principal form of presidential directive used to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency. This is a necessary legal step before such action can take place but does not mean that it will.
Washington Post: In Libya, CIA is gathering intelligence on rebels
The Obama administration has sent teams of CIA operatives into Libya in a rush to gather intelligence on the identities and capabilities of rebel forces opposed to Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi, according to U.S. officials.
The information has become more crucial as the administration and its coalition partners move closer to providing direct military aid or guidance to the disorganized and beleaguered rebel army.
Although the administration has pledged that no U.S. ground troops will be deployed to Libya, officials said Wednesday that President Obama has issued a secret finding that would authorize the CIA to carry out a clandestine effort to provide arms and other support to Libyan opposition groups.
I can’t imagine why anyone would be surprised that the CIA is involved in Libya (they are everywhere). But the progs are looking down their noses in strong disapproval.
Emptywheel: Where Will Obama Try Himself for Material Support for Terrorism?
After all, according to Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project any help to a terrorist group–even counseling on how to make peace–is material support. And no matter how we try to spin arming rebels as an act of peace, it’s a good deal more help than legal counsel.
And, as the DC Circuit’s decision yesterday in Uthman Abdul Rahim Mohammed Uthman’s habeas suit makes clear, it’s not enough for a person to stop associating with al Qaeda in the 1990s, nor does the government need any real evidence of a tie between someone in al Qaeda’s vicinity to claim that person is a member of al Qaeda.
Glenn Greenwald: The wisdom and legality of arming Libyan rebels
Then there’s the question of the legality of arming Libyan troops. Salon’s Justin Elliott reported on Monday that the administration was actively considering arming the rebels despite an absolute arms embargo imposed by U.N. Resolution 1970 (“imposing an arms embargo on the country”). Today, The Guardian elaborates by citing numerous legal experts insisting that it would be a violation of the U.N. Resolution for the U.S. to arm the rebels. For its part, the U.S. insists that it is legally entitled to do so, with Hillary Clinton announcing that the arms embargo has been “overriden” by the broad mandate of U.N. Resolution 1973, allowing “all necessary measures” to be used to protect Libyan civilians.
On the strictly legal issue, this seems to be a close question. Can the specific arms embargo really be “overriden” by a general clause allowing the protection of civilians? That seems redolent of the Bush arguments that specific prohibitions in the law (such as the ban on warrantless eavesdropping) were “overriden” by the broad war powers assigned by the AUMF. More to the point, can it really be said that arming Libyan rebels is necessary for the protection of civilians? That sounds much more like what one does to help one side win a civil war.
I don’t know, and I admit I don’t like the idea of this action in Libya expanding too far. I remember when Reagan armed the “Contras.” Of course back in those days we were arming right-wing groups and the US was involved in countless human rights violations. In Libya, the opposition forces are trying to depose a genuinely evil dictator who has been involved in terrorist attacks.
But here’s my question: why don’t the progs convince the guy they supported to get us the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan? They wanted this guy, they forced him on us, and now they’re whining. and what are they doing to find a decent alternative? A big nothing.
I’m not going to be happy if we get involved in a ground war in Libya or anywhere else, but it hasn’t happened yet. We’ve been in Afghanistan for almost ten years!
Raw Story: Most Americans think Obama does not deserve re-election, according to new poll
Obama’s approval rating is also at its lowest point ever, at 42 percent, while his disapproval rating rose from earlier in the month to a new high of 48 percent.
A similar Quinnipiac poll published March 3 found President Obama with 46 percent approval and 46 percent disapproval.
In that earlier poll, voters also split on whether Obama deserves reelection, with 47 percent saying yes and 45 percent saying no.
The latest poll reflects the president’s sliding fortunes in other studies, with a full 50 percent now saying that he does not deserve to stay in office beyond 2012.
The big problem with this is that the Republicans are bound to nominate someone who is to the right of Atilla the Hun and about as crazy and unempathetic as Muammar Gaddafi. I refuse to vote for Obama, but what if we end up with Michelle Bachmann or Mike Huckabee as President?
Anyway, the Tea Party’s polls are in the crapper along with Obama’s.
Just 32 percent of respondents viewed the tea party favorably, while a record-high 47 percent had a negative view of the movement that propelled Republicans to dramatic Congressional victories last November. Fourteen percent had no opinion, and 7 percent said they’ve never heard of the tea party.
I sure hope the Congresspeople find out about that.
Russ Feingold doesn’t think Jeffrey Immelt is a very good jobs czar. No kidding, lol.
Feingold’s new group, Progressives United, is set to launch a new campaign to pressure General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt to step down as the head of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competiveness. Feingold’s campaign — which I’m told will be joined by Move On later today — is based on two pieces of news that, Feingold says, render Immelt unfit for the gig of Obama jobs chief: GE paid no American taxes in 2010; and Immelt’s compensation doubled .
In an email to members of his new group, Feingold will argue that if Immelt doesn’t step down, Obama should fire him, arguing that Dems need to stop coddling corporations whose behavior undermines our economy:
I’ve got a couple of semi-humorous stories to get your mind off all the bad news. Get out your tiny violin. Did you know that the super-rich are unhappy and dissatisfied with their lives?
The Atlantic: Secret Fears of the Super-Rich
Does great wealth bring fulfillment? An ambitious study by Boston College suggests not. For the first time, researchers prompted the very rich—people with fortunes in excess of $25 million—to speak candidly about their lives. The result is a surprising litany of anxieties: their sense of isolation, their worries about work and love, and most of all, their fears for their children.
Awwwww. Too bad, so sad. Then give your money away to people who actually need it, why don’t you. And then get a real job.
Raw Story: Death anxiety linked to acceptance of intelligent design: study
Research conducted at the University of British Columbia and Union College found that people’s death anxiety was associated with support of intelligent design and rejection of evolutionary theory.
Death anxiety also influenced those in the study to report an increased liking for Michael Behe, a prominent proponent of intelligent design, and an increased disliking for Richard Dawkins, a well-known evolutionary biologist.
The findings suggest that people are motivated to believe in intelligent design and doubt evolutionary theory because of unconscious psychological motives.
Okay, time out. Because? No. This is a correlational study, and as we all should have learned long ago, Correlation does not equal causation.
The study was lead by UBC Psychology Assistant Professor Jessica Tracy and and UBC psychology PhD student Jason Martens. It was published in the March 30 issue of the open access journal PLoS ONE.
“Our results suggest that when confronted with existential concerns, people respond by searching for a sense of meaning and purpose in life,” Tracy said. “For many, it appears that evolutionary theory doesn’t offer enough of a compelling answer to deal with these big questions.”
There are a lot of variables unaccounted for in this description of the study. Maybe death anxiety is just associated with fundamentalist Christianity. I guess I could look up the study and see what the findings really were… But I probably won’t.
That’s all I’ve got for today. What are you reading and blogging about?
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
- More
Tuesday Reads
Posted: March 29, 2011 | Author: bostonboomer | Filed under: Barack Obama, Foreign Affairs, Hillary Clinton, legislation, Libya, morning reads, Republican presidential politics, U.S. Military, U.S. Politics, worker rights | Tags: Donald Trump, Fareed Zackaria, Fukuskim nuclear plant, Indiana politics, Japan, Juan Cole, Libya, Moammar Gaddafi, NATO, radiation, Tom Malinowsky, Tom Ricks, unions | 92 CommentsGood morning, political junkies!! Let’s get right to the news.
President Obama gave a speech last night in which he made a pretty good case (IMO) for U.S. limited intervention in Libya. He stated that there were not going to be American boots on the ground and that the U.S. is essentially finished with its part of the operation–it will be up to the UK, France, and Italy to police the no-fly zone and to the Libyan people to depose Gaddafi and decide what comes next.
Surprisingly, Obama was a bit more animated than usual–actually emphasizing points with his voice and at times appearing almost passionate. At least the speech didn’t start to put me to sleep until the last several minutes.
Obama indicated that the U.S. will continue to support efforts to set up a functioning government in Libya, but that will be a non-military effort. If he stands strong with that, I think he’s finally done something I agree with and can support.
Obama also argued that just because we can’t intervene in every conflict doesn’t mean that we should never intervene at all. We have to choose our battles, and in the case of Libya we had a dictator who was using his military–and his air power to kill his own citizens indiscriminately. If he had managed to attack Benghazi he might have murdered hundreds of thousands of people.
Furthermore, Libyans had asked for our help, and our action was supported by other Arab countries and by the Arab League. For once the U.S. was doing something that most Arabs wanted us to do. If we had not acted, we would have seen an atrocity take place, and that would have encouraged dictators in other Arab countries to crack down violently on protesters.
Here is the full text of the speech, if you are interested. I do think Obama went on too long after making the case for Libya. The speech would have been much better if he had done that and then wrapped it up.
I must say, I do not understand the criticisms of this Libya policy that I’m seeing in the progosphere, and from some people here at Sky Dancing. Maybe I’m nuts, but I think the U.S. finally had a chance to do something good with its massive military power and at the same time we get some good PR in a part of the world that has long hated us–with justification because we have enabled most of the tyrants in the region. I’m glad Hillary was able to convince her boss to do the right thing.
I want to call attention to some very knowledgeable people who agree with my assessment–and we do appear to be in the minority.
Thomas Ricks was on Monday’s edition of NPR’s Talk of the Nation. He said that he was struck by how many people either aren’t listening to what Obama, Clinton, and Gates are saying or they are discounting it out of hand.
Ricks said that these three are saying that the U.S. goals in Libya have already been achieved. The rebel forces are knocking on the door of Tripoli, thanks to the no-fly zone and some strategic bombing by the coalition countries. As Obama said last night, it is now up to Libyans to decide what to do with Gaddafi. We aren’t going to try to take him out.
Here’s what Ricks wrote on his blog after his appearance on Meet the Press with Gates and Clinton:
I was on Meet the Press yesterday, following Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates. I was struck at how frequently they emphasized the short-term, limited nature of the U.S. action in Libya, and how they used the past tense to discuss it:
Gates: “I think that the no fly zone aspect of the mission has been accomplished.”
Clinton: “I think we’ve prevented a great humanitarian disaster.”
Gates: “we see our commitment of resources actually beginning to — to decline.”
Gates: “in terms of the military commitment, the president has put some very strict limitations in terms of what we are prepared to do.”
Gates: “I don’t think it’s [Libya] a vital interest for the United States. But we clearly have interests there. And it’s a part of the region, which is a vital interest for the United States.”
I also was struck at how much more assertive Clinton seemed than Gates. A friend of mine calls this “State’s War.”
Ricks also blogged about his take on Obama’s speech: Obama on Libya: Watch out, Saudi Arabia
What we saw in the NDU speech was a logical defense of what the president has ordered the military to do and an exposition of what the limits of the action will be. The cost of inaction threatened to be greater than the cost of action, but now we have done our part. Next role for the U.S. military is best supporting actor, providing electronic jammers, combat search and rescue, logistics and intelligence. That was all necessary, and pretty much as expected.
But I was most struck by the last few minutes of the speech, when Obama sought to put the Libyan intervention in the context of the regional Arab uprising. He firmly embraced the forces of change, saying that history is on their side, not on the side of the oppressors. In doing so he deftly evoked two moments in our own history-first, explicitly, the American Revolution, and second, more slyly, abolitionism, with a reference to “the North Star,” which happened to be the name of Frederick Douglass’s newspaper. If you think that was unintentional, read this.
Hmmm…I totally missed that. Follow me below the fold…
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
- More








Recent Comments